The
plaintiff, Adana Finch, sued Corelogic SafeRent LLC
(“SafeRent”), which she contends is “in the
business of conducting background checks of individuals,
” for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by
disseminating inaccurate information, and, in turn, causing
Finch to be denied public housing. The defendant moves for
summary judgment based on Finch's inability to prove that
SafeRent's tenant screening report of Finch caused the
injuries of which she complains. The motion is granted.

In
March 2011 Plaintiff was arrested and charged in Kane County,
Illinois with the offenses of aggravated battery of a private
security officer; aggravated battery in a public place;
domestic battery which causes bodily harm; and domestic
battery with physical contact. On December 6, 2012, Plaintiff
pled guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Plaintiff
applied for housing with the Housing Authority of Elgin (HAE)
in 2012. The HAE is a public housing authority established
under the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Illinois
Housing Authority Act; it provides affordable housing for
low- and middle-income families. HAE provides housing for
those, among other, with Housing Choice Vouchers under the
Section 8 program administered by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (“HUD”). HUD regulations
for Section 8 provide that, as to participants in the Housing
Choice Voucher Program, a public housing authority “may
prohibit admission of a household to the program if the PHA
determines that any household member is currently engaged in,
or has engaged in during a reasonable time before the
admission: “(1) Drug related criminal activity; (2)
Violent criminal activity; (3) Other criminal activity which
may threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises by other residents or persons
residing in the immediate vicinity.” 24 C.F.R. §
982.553. Criminal Activity is defined by 24 C.F.R. §
5.100 as “any criminal activity that has as one of its
elements the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force substantial enough to cause, or be reasonably
likely to cause, serious bodily injury or property
damage.”

In
connection with Finch's application to HAE, SafeRent
provided a background report for the purpose of
“resident screening” on July 30, 2012. The Report
reflected that Finch had been arrested and charged with four
counts of battery. On August 1, 2012, HAE sent Plaintiff a
letter denying Plaintiff's application, explaining:
“Your police record indicates that you would have
adverse influence upon sound family and community
life.” The letter provided an opportunity for a
rehearing, which Finch requested. But she failed to appear at
the hearing scheduled for December 20, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. A
December 27, 2012 letter stated that “[t]his is the
second hearing scheduled for Adana where she did not
show.”

On June
4, 2013, Finch submitted a request to HAE to “port
in” her Section 8 housing voucher; that is, to move to
Elgin and retain her current eligibility for public housing.
HAE requested a criminal history report from SafeRent. The
resulting report stated that Plaintiff had been convicted of
felony disorderly conduct-which is not true, her conviction
was for a misdemeanor-and that she had been charged with
three additional counts of battery. HAE denied Finch's
“port-in” request based on a conviction for
violent conduct in the previous five years; specifically, the
letter referred to Finch having “[a]ny conviction for
drug-related or violent criminal activity within the past 5
years.”

Finch
requested and obtained an informal rehearing. In its June 25,
2013, letter, HAE stated that “the hearing officer will
review all documentation related to the charge(s) in
question. You will have an opportunity to present any
information to the hearing officer on that date.”

Plaintiff
claimed that her disorderly conduct conviction had been
dismissed after her completion of court-ordered supervision.
HAE asked Finch provide paperwork showing she had completed
supervision and that her conviction had been dismissed. A
hearing was held on July 3, 2013; Finch was represented by
counsel and was permitted to present evidence. She provided
court orders reflecting that disorderly conduct charge was
amended down from felony to a class C misdemeanor, but she
did not provide any paperwork showing that she completed
supervision or that her conviction had been dismissed. The
hearing officer affirmed the denial of Finch's
portability request. In April 2013, before Finch's
request to “port in” her Section 8 voucher, HAE
had denied a portability request from another applicant who
had pled guilty to disorderly conduct as a Class C
misdemeanor.

DISCUSSION

Under
the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency is required to follow
“reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy” of the information contained in a
consumer's credit report, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and
a credit reporting agency that negligently violates the
provisions of the FCRA is potentially liable for actual
damages, costs, and attorney's fees. 15 U.S.C. §
1681o. Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284
(7th Cir. 1994). Finch's First Amended Complaint claims
that SafeRent violated the FCRA by “(a) Failing to
explain or aid third party requestors in the reading and
interpretation of furnished reports; (b) Failing to receive
proper consent before releasing information to third parties;
and (c) Providing inaccurate information to third
parties.” FAC ¶ 4, ECF No. 19. As to third of
these arguments, SafeRent maintains that Finch cannot prove
her claim because the denial of her portability request was
based on a conviction for a violent crime, regardless of
whether SafeRent had reported it as a “felony” or
a “misdemeanor.” The first two claims, SafeRent
says, are not cognizable under the FCRA, and maintains that
Plaintiff in fact consented to the provision of her criminal
history to HAE in any event.

Summary
judgment “shall” be granted if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The facts are construed and reasonable
inferences drawn in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Bentrud v. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia &
Vician, P.C., 794 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2015).
Nevertheless, summary judgment is the stage when a party must
show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact
to accept its version of the events. Diadenko v.
Folino, 741 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2013).
“Plaintiffs cannot rest on the allegations of their
complaint at this stage . . . . They need some evidence to
present to a jury.” Harvey v. Town of
Merrillville, 649 F.3d 526, 532 (7th Cir. 2011).

In
response to the summary judgment motion, Finch does not
address the arguments that FCRA imposes no obligations to
“explain or aid third party requestors in the reading
and interpretation of furnished reports” or to obtain
“proper consent before releasing information to third
parties.” Nor does she dispute that she gave written
consent in connection with her portability request. The
failure to respond to arguments results in waiver.
Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads v. Foxx, 815
F.3d 1068, 1078 (7th Cir. 2016); Goodpaster v. City of
Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060, 1075 (7th Cir. 2013).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finch
does respond to SafeRent&#39;s argument that, even if it
provided misinformation that Finch&#39;s disorderly conduct
conviction was a felony (as it was charged) rather than a
misdemeanor (as reduced), the effect on her housing
application[2] would have been the same. Finch mocks the
position that “[w]hile [SafeRent] violated the FCRA by
reporting false information and refusing to correct its
mistakes, there can be no ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.